|
Fellow Weekly - Issue 115
WHAT'S THE LAW ™
◆
Encouraging intelligent and entertaining debate at your Shabbat table.
Fellow Weekly raises issues of business law and ethics through lively emails by featuring your real-life scenarios answered by our leading authorities and professionals.
|
|
CLICK HERE FOR THIS ISSUE' S PDF
Spearheaded by Rabbi Myer J. Schwab, Dean of Bais Yaakov of Denver
THE RAV SHIMON SCHWAB ZT"L
CHOSHEN MISHPAT CHINUCH INITIATIVE FUND
We can succeed by working TOGETHER
Please click here for dedication and partnership opportunities.
Thank you |
|
Case # 220 Whopping Winter Wet War
Concluding a taxing wintery day of jury duty, envisioning the thrilling struggle for an inch on the Manhattan Subway, the stressed out crowd carefully pushed their ways down the black-iced stately stairway before the New York City Supreme Court building on 60 Centre Street.
His checkered scarf tightly wrapped around his face; Arnold's brown Florsheim's™ Cromwell dress shoes suddenly lost traction, and sent him for a hard nose dive, but not before the tip of his black totes® umbrella rib pierced an ugly snag in the flapping coat tails of Ben's blue Nautica; in no time - pulling Ben down hard to a sitting position on the cold wet concrete.
The debacle compounded almost simultaneously, as Marc, trekking closely behind, stumbled hard over sprawled out Arnold, broke his ankle and inadvertently crushed his rented MacBook Air across Arnold's battered bleeding face.
1. Must Arnold pay for the damage his umbrella rib tip caused to Ben's Blue Nautica?
2. Who pays for the MacBook; Arnold or Marc?
3. If the MacBook caused Arnold to need additional stitches; is Marc liable?
4. Who pays for Marc's medical expenses?
Please email us with your comments and answers at weekly@projectfellow.org
|
|
|
Case # 219 Sideswipe Delivery
"It's coming ... Get there fast!" she yelled. The hazard lights flashed ferociously at 2 am on a cold winter night.
Barreling down Forty Eighth street in Borough Park, at lightning speed, and the wrong way to boot, the Freedmans raced against time. Would they make the Maimonides delivery ward in time? Mrs. Freedman had an unpredictable and sometimes risky delivery history.
"Ari watch out on your right!", shrieked Mr. Freedman to his brother, while pressing his palms up hard against the roof of his blue Toyota Prius. Ari instinctively swerved to his left to protect himself, his passengers and his brother's car from an oncoming speeding Domino's Pizza delivery boy texting on his motorcycle.
Crunch! Ari sideswiped a parked white Honda Civic, leaving a line of white along the body of his brother's car, shook Mrs. Freedman up, and took the Civic's sideview mirror along with him to the hospital.
Barring insurance policy guidelines, who should pay for the damages to the Civic; the delivery boy, Ari, Mr. and Mrs. Freedman, or must the Civic owner swallow the loss ?
What's the Law?
|
|
The Answer
We present you here with a concise ruling. For a more intricate elucidation, please see the detailed explanation below.
Barring insurance policies, the Civic must swallow the loss. |
|
Detailed Explanation
Sideswipe Delivery invokes the following three laws.
1. In order to ensure that people would not be afraid to endeavor to save a person in distress, the sages instituted a special dispensation from paying for any inadvertent damages, one causes while involving oneself in a saving the life of another [see Toras Hayoledes by Rav Yitzchak Zilberstein in the name of Rav Chaim Pinchas Scheinberg for possible exceptions] [Choshen Mishpat 381: 3].
2. One who saves himself/herself by damaging another's property must pay for the damages [ibid.]
3. Beit Din generally lacks authority to collect for indirect damages resulting from the aggressor's actions. Nevertheless, the aggressor has a moral obligation to pay for intentional indirect damages, while is absolved from paying for unintentional indirect damages [Choshen Mishpat 386, Imrei Yosher].
Application:
Ari
Ari was involved in saving his sister-in-law. We would apply the special dispensation from paying for any inadvertent damages and absolve him from paying for the damaged Civic (barring insurance policies).
Mr. and Mrs. Freedman
If Mrs. Freedman would have been driving and inadvertently damaged the Civic, she would be liable. However, in our scenario, she did not commit the damage; her savior did. She is absolved from paying.
The Delivery Boy
The delivery boy at worst was partially indirectly responsible for the damage to the mirror, for which we cannot demand him to pay.
For Further Discussion
Consider the following three scenarios.
1. Ari collided with the Pizza Delivery boy, while the delivery boy was texting and speeding.
2. Ari collided with the Pizza Delivery boy, while the delivery boy was driving normally, but had an opportunity to move out of the way.
3. Ari collided , while the delivery boy was driving normally, but did not had an opportunity to move out of the way [see Choshen Mishpat 378: 6; see Issue 114 and reflect on the following three concepts 1. Right of way 2. Ability to avoid collision 3. Intentional/unintentional damage]
|
|
|
|
|
Note:
Although we aim to present the correct ruling, varying details are always important and decisively influence every individual case. Our readers are thus encouraged to present their personal cases to a competent authority and not solely rely on the information provided.
Together...for a better world
You can help build a better world. Just invite your friends and family to subscribe to
Fellow Weekly.
To join this mailing list, please click here
or send an email to weekly@projectfellow.org with the word subscribe in the subject line
CLICK HERE to DONATE to PROJECT FELLOW TODAY!
|
|
A project of
Yesharim Foundation for Ethical Law
105/21 Sanhedria Murchevet, Jerusalem
ISRAEL 02-581-6337
USA 845-335-5516 |
|
